Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs P, says the Council failed to tell them about their neighbours planning application. It also failed to consider the impact of the proposed extension on Mrs P’s property.
2. Mrs P wants the Council to pay her compensation for:
• loss of value to her property; and
• suffering caused to her physical and her husband’s mental heath

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure,’ which we call ‘fault.’ We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice.’ We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs P and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we must consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
7. Regulations set out the minimum requirements for how councils publicise planning applications. For minor developments, councils must publicise by either:
• a site notice; or
• serving notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.
8. Councils must also produce a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The SCI sets out the Council’s policy on how it will communicate with the public when it carries out its functions.
9. The Council’s SCI states it will send letters to immediate neighbours and erect a site notice.
10. The Council received a planning application from Mrs P’s neighbour. This was for a 2-storey side and rear extension with changes to windows and the roof. It says it sent letters to the immediate neighbours, including Mrs P’s property.
11. At the time of the application Mrs P was renting her property to tenants. She says the tenants told her they did not receive a letter from the Council.
12. The Council also put up a site notice outside the property. Mrs P says this was during lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, she could not travel and did not see the site notice.
13. The Council’s records show it consulted neighbours. I understand Mrs P’s tenants say they did not receive a letter. However, these letters are addressed to the owner/occupier. It is possible the tenants did not recognise the letter for what it was. However, it is also possible the letter was not received. But on the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied the letters were sent. If it did not arrive at Mrs P’s property, I cannot say that is the fault of the Council.
14. It is unfortunate that Mrs P did not see the site notice. She says she could not travel because of lockdown restrictions. But the Government did not require Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to stop making decisions on planning applications during lockdown. Therefore, I am convinced the Council satisfied the legal requirements for notification.
15. I must now consider whether the Council has properly considered the effect of the planning application upon Mrs P’s property.
16. The Planning Officer’s report makes it clear the Council is fully aware of the proposed scheme and the location of the neighbouring properties, including Mrs P’s. It notes:
• the separation distances
• the distance the extension will project to the rear
• the location of proposed windows; and
• the location of Mrs P’s property.
17. Having considered this the Planning Officer concluded there would not be an unacceptable loss of outlook or cause a sense of enclosure.
18. Mrs P says the Council failed to consider her right to light and information in her property deeds regarding new building. However, these are civil matters and not material planning considerations for the Council’s consideration. Loss of property value is also not a material planning consideration.
19. I accept Mrs P disagrees, but the Planning Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement and the Ombudsman cannot question this unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Mrs P’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman